Good lord is this woman a whack-job or what? From the BBC coverage of an upcoming interview with Judith Miller. Her "apologies" for helping lead the drumbeat that resulted in an endless war and thousands dead and wounded for life:

She said: "I'm deeply sorry our intelligence community got it wrong.

"I am deeply sorry that the President was given a national intelligence estimate which concluded that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and a active weapons programme."

I'm deeply sorry the NY Times decided to destroy their own once-great reputation by giving this loon a paycheck. Ever.

And if the above is not pitiable enough, she reportedly admits that Scooter Libby was one of her sources for the Plame leak (didn't she tell us previously she couldn't remember who told her?) but when asked if Karl Rove was also a source, she tells BBC:

"I can't talk about the specifics of this case as I might be a witness in a criminal trial."

Huh? I'm no legal eagle, but is there some kind of law that prevents a witness to a crime from telling the press what they know about the crime?

Does this woman think that an interview she gives to the BBC won't make it aaaall the way back here across the pond?

She lost her job, and now --- it seems --- she's lost her mind. Or did that happen in the reverse order? Good lord...

Her one source was Chalabi. He was also the government's primary source. Chalabi wanted the United States to invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, and create a leadership vacuum...not because Chalabi loves freedom, but because he could make deals and profit during the rebuilding process. So he made up a lot of stuff about WMD.

Judy Miller is a reporter. She took what Chalabi said at face value. The government did, too...but that doesn't excuse Judy. As Maureen Dowd put it so well, "A REPORTER IS NOT A STENOGRAPHER."

Okay, so maybe the "intelligence community" got it wrong. But Bush had Blix and El-Baradei "on the ground" in Iraq getting it right, and Bush CHOSE to ignore them, and to go to war anyway. This "our intelligence was wrong" is just another smokescreen to cover the fact that Bush was hell-bent on war, and was just grabbing at any make-believe reason for it.

Absolutely right, Shadogovernment. Consider the implications of using "our intelligence was wrong" as an excuse for private behavior.

I may break down the door to my neighbor's home and fire a gun at the man of the house because "I learned from a private source" that he was abusing his wife. If the source is wrong, I'm still absolved because I honestly believed it was reliable.

I may torture a neighbor to obtain information about who stole my car, because another neighbor (my source) said, "________ knows who did it." This isn't torture, because the thief is a crook, and anyone who keeps silent about car theft is, too.

I may steal elections, because "my source" tells me the other side is trying to do the same. If the source is wrong, that's O.K. because my guy won.

If I did any of the above, I'd go to jail, right? What's that you say? I'd go to jail for the first two, but not the third? Come on, now...this is America!

The b*tch is still lying for the government .... still covering this blantantly criminal administration by blaming the intelligence community. Does she think we're all as immoral as she?
To me she's a criminal and should be in jail for frauding the publix into an illegal invasion along with her DC cronies.
The blood of our soldiers (the true heroes...unlike the chickenhawks pussies sending them to die) that fight to feed their families and keep their buddy next to them alive and the hundred of thousand innocents is on her soul as it is on the soul of every fool that voted for bush, especially in 2004.

My sense is that Miller at first believed Chalabi. I think she became a tool of the administration, after not starting out that way.

It's hubris more than venality, I think. At some point Miller realized she'd done a shitty job, and had been seduced by a guy with his own agenda, Chalabi. Rather than go to her superiors at the Times and say, "Look, I got this wrong. The case for war is phony..." she chose to protect herself by keeping silent. She protected Bush/Cheney at the same time, but it isn't clear to me that was her intent all along.

A second, less likely possibility is that Miller did go to the Times and say, "I got Iraq wrong," and that the editors refused to allow her to change course in her stories (probably out of fear that the Bush crowd would retailate by denying them "access").

In that event, whoever made the decision (Keller?)
would get my vote as the worst newspaper editor of all time. This is the same crew, of course, that ignored election fraud in 2004, in fact ridiculed it by referring to bloggers as "conspiracy theorists" while ignoring the Conyers report and the findings of college professors.

Can anyone help me locate a great article I read a few days ago? It was a laundry list of ten or so counter-arguments to common Repugnican talking points regarding Iraq, Valerie Plame and various other topics they like to lie about. I think I found it linked from Brad Blog, but it may have been Salon or Raw Story. Either way, I can't find the link anymore and would love to be able to re-read the article and e-mail it to a few idiots at work. Any help would be appreciated!

Judy should be asked if it was bolton who told her valerie Flame name. Why did he visit her in prison --- twice! He doesn't seem the type for get well or cheer up visits. especially when he was getting ready for his mission to destroy the UN.

When are you communist pinko's gonna find out the truth about the pre-war period and who screwed up?

It wasn't the republicans that lied, it is the democrats that are currently lying.

First of all, we find out from factcheck.org that most democratic members of congress never read the intel reports before the war, and some never even read the 5 page executive summary.

This summary released under the freedom act indicated "that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any" It also said "We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD".

And finally the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. THE ACTIVITIES WE HAVE DETECTED DO NOT, HOWEVER, ADD UP TO A COMPELLING CASE THAT IRAQ IS CURRENTLY PURSUING WHAT INR WOULD CONSIDER TO BE AN INTEGRATED AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. AS A RESULT, INR IS UNABLE TO PREDICT WHEN IRAQ COULD ACQUIRE A NUCLEAR DEVICE OR WEAPON.

I personally think that WE rushed to war and could have delayed our invasion. But the reason we didn't delay is that the democrats ignored all the intel information that basically said Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. They thought just like the republicans that Saddam was dangerous and that he should go. Don't try to change history, for once the democrats simply chose not to debate. Shame on them

Uh.. FMW, I guess I don't get how you say it's the "dems" when the PRESIDENT decided to invade, and the PRESIDENT ignored the INTEL that you present.. He kicked the inspectors out and invaded...period. Congress only told him "we'll let you decide if/when you need to go in".. Congress didn't tell the President to keep saying over and over "Saddam has WMDs.. Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda", your illustrious (or perhaps ignoramous is more appropriate) President did that.

It's amazing how you will try to spin this to be "the dems fault". I agree that the Dems "failed" by even giving ShitForBrainsShrubby permission (and, it's in direct violation of the Constitution, at that.. someone brought that up at the meeting to discuss the vote, and the Repug Chairman said "the constitution is out dated"... nice), but the PRESIDENT decided to illegally invade, not Congress..

What's more amazing is morons like you come here and scream partisan bullshit DESPITE most of us here NOT giving a pass to Dems.. I know, I know.. you Repugs are so programmed to giving your own criminals a pass all the time that you just can't fathom that "honest" people don't do that for their Dem leaders.

The funny thing is, this woman was the liberal hero up until you found out she wasn't going to get Bush impeached after all.

And the Democrats were absolutely certain that Sodom had WMD and needed to be attacked... Back when Biilzebubba was president? Remember the Ramadan bombing? Began the day Clinton's impeachment was scheduled to begin, ended less than a week after spineless Republicans let him off the hook? Lemme guess, that was another of Bush's conspiracies?

And finally, the man's either a diabolical genius who's making himself intor an emperor or he's a dumbass--pick one; you can't have both.

Well, Redneck (appropriate name).. See, not all of us supported Clinton when he did things he shouldn't have either.. Though, in his defense, the inspectors weren't being allowed in when Bubba bombed, and there was a known deadline, and Saddam ignored it, and at -that- point, the intel was sketchy. Given I've not done any real investigating on those issues, I'll leave them be.. and point out, you are once again trying to justify an illegal and unjust war by saying "uh.. someone bad did something not good once too!".. That's not an argument, that's a cop-out.

Secondly, "this woman" was never my hero, ever. I guess I shouldn't expect a redneck to get that "her testimony was eagerly awaited" when it "appeared she might not be a nut-job" is nothing even close to "being a hero" for someone... Oh well, fitting name I see..

Third, -Shrubby- is a moron, the people pulling the strings are diabolical.. Chimp Boy is just their rich poster child with family connections that said "I wanna play! I wanna play!" and they felt obligated to let him. That doesn't make Bush smart, that makes him a spoiled little shitbag.. just like his tantrums support, like his not taking -any- advice supports.. etc etc.

Basically, you are here spouting the same retarded (redneck, if you will) crap about how "dems suck dems suck dems suck!" and expect that to somehow -justify- what shit-for-brains is doing.. It doesn't.. All it does is show how locked into partisan thinking you are, and shows how you are part of the greater problem in this country (and the world)... self interested morons who don't wan't to think for themselves and just want to keep on taking from anyone they can.. In the enlightend world, we call you juvinile bullies.. Redneck works too..

I'd still like to know what GG was doing in the whitehouse at all! And doesn't anyone else find it suspicious that just as the gay hooker in the whitehouse story was starting to make waves, long time Bush family friend Doug Wead hits the headlines with "unauthorised" recordings of Bush saying that he wouldn't fire someone for being gay? uhuh. yeah, coincidence.

"Well, Redneck (appropriate name).. See, not all of us supported Clinton when he did things he shouldn't have either.."
--Those who didn't were mysteriously silent.

"Though, in his defense, the inspectors weren't being allowed in when Bubba bombed, and there was a known deadline, and Saddam ignored it, and at -that- point, the intel was sketchy."
--And being allowed in, searching exactly where Sodom tells them they can search, and having his agents looking over their shoulders is a whole different story, I presume?

" you are once again trying to justify an illegal and unjust war by saying "uh.. someone bad did something not good once too!".. That's not an argument, that's a cop-out."
--Incorrect on two counts. First, upon being an illegan and unjust war, but second upon my claim. Note that I did not say "Clinton did it too" but "And the Democrats were absolutely certain that Sodom had WMD and needed to be attacked... Back when Biilzebubba was president?" That Clinton was a scumbag is beyond argument, and I wasn't bothering to argue it. However, many people who are now screaming that there's no reason to believe there were any WMD in Iraq (despite the tons of Uranium (some enriched), sarin, rounds loaded with chemical weapons, etc. still there), were the same people swearing to us that there were tons of WMD in Iraq and action was needed. So sorry, but that wasn't a rebuttal, that was a Straw Man Argument.

"Secondly, "this woman" was never my hero, ever. I guess I shouldn't expect a redneck to get that "her testimony was eagerly awaited" when it "appeared she might not be a nut-job" is nothing even close to "being a hero" for someone..."
--And the mash notes from the "not liberal" media were just "satire", then?

"Third, -Shrubby- is a moron, the people pulling the strings are diabolical.. Chimp Boy is just their rich poster child with family connections that said "I wanna play! I wanna play!" and they felt obligated to let him. That doesn't make Bush smart, that makes him a spoiled little shitbag.. just like his tantrums support, like his not taking -any- advice supports.. etc etc"
--Ahh. So the diabolical geniuses are in the background, but he won't listen to anybody. Makes it a little difficult to pull his strings, don't that? Sounds like the kind of ultra-conspiracy-theory I'd expect from... what was it? Oh--someone " locked into partisan thinking"

"Basically, you are here spouting the same retarded (redneck, if you will) crap about how "dems suck dems suck dems suck!""
And I said this... when? What I said is that the Democrats were singing a different tune when it was someone other than Bush giving the orders.

So if you want to argue against what I said, then by all means do so. If you want to simply make up something, attribute it to me, and then argue against it, then by all means continue.

" self interested morons who don't wan't to think for themselves and just want to keep on taking from anyone they can.. In the enlightend world, we call you juvinile bullies.. Redneck works too.. "
--And just where did this "taking from anyone they can" tripe come from? Perhaps rednecks such as myself aren't too familiar with the "enlightend (sic) world", but here in the real world we call that "delusional." "Liberal" works too.

For the Redneck: The issue is NOT whether a lot of people had a lot of reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq, because it's clear a lot of people in both parties DID IN FACT BELIEVE THIS.

The issue is whether invading Iraq in the absence of PROOF was the right thing to do. It was not. Blix and el-Baradei were there in behalf of the U.N., seeking proof. George W. Bush didn't wait for them to complete their work, relying on "intelligence" (the word is a self-contradiction these days) that Saddam was moving the WMD around to foil the inspectors.

Bush invaded Iraq in the absence of proof. When it became clear he'd screwed up, he contrived other phony excuses for having invaded, "Saddam has links to al Qaeda," "Iraq wants to buy uranium from Niger," "Getting rid of Saddam makes us safer," "We have to create a model democracy in the Middle East." (did I forget any?)

Like the true chickenhawk that he is, Bush bombed Baghdad at night, killing innocent children in their beds under the imprimatur of a clever phrase which will live in infamy... "Shock and Awe." Since then, this self-deluding, sociopathic man has continued to say things like: "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

I shudder to think what the history books will be writing about all this in the year 2100. Go ahead and defend all this if you must, but do me a favor, will you? Leave a letter for your own grandchildren explaining why you signed on to it. Thanks.

Mr. Mills, I'm afraid you're making the assumption that further searching, with Houssein in power, would have determined whether they were there or not. I'm further afraid that this is a delusion.

We had sattelite pictures of trucks hauling something out of plants before the inspectors showed up. What do you think they were hauling?

The UN inspectors had Iraqi agents wherever they went, had to hand over a schedule of where they were going to check, and couldn't talk to any actual Iraqi citizens unless one of Sodom's agents was there. Can you tell me why this was?

There was, arguably, not enough proof to convince OJ Simpson's jury, but it was plainly obvious to everyone that he had the stuff, and we've found significant quantities of Sarin, rounds loaded with other chemical weapons, and several tons of uranium.

These "phony excuses" were stated long before the war began; liberals often got pissed at him because he wouldn't settle on one individual reason. As an extra note, Bush said British intelligence believed Sodom had tried to buy Uranium from Nigeria. By a strange coincidence, British intelligence believed Sodom had tried to buy uranium from Nigeria. They still do.

Ahh, yes, the "killing innocent children in their beds" line. Maybe that's why we used smart bombs and Tomahawks? That whole "precision-guided" thing? A precision guidance, by the way, that would have worked far better but for the GPS-jammers that Saddam wasn't supposed to have. See how good a job the UN did with their sanctions, there. And this makes him a "true chickenhawk." Would your conscience have been soothed if he'd tried to bomb factories and roads in the daytime, when they were filled with people? Or should we have given our troops lances and horses to make the fight more even? We could have had huge numbers of Coalition forces surrender, to even up that part too, but the French refused to join in. But while you speak so heartbrokenly of the thousands of children who "died in their beds", where's your sympathy for the tens of thousands--and more--dead under Sodom's rule? They could have used your sympathy and outrage a few years ago.

I just may leave a letter for my grandchildren. It will start with "Years ago, a bunch of people called Muslims tried to kill us all. Here's why they failed." Do me a favor, if you would, and make sure your name is on record somewhere as against this, so I can point it out to my grandkids--or to the Iraqis, for that matter--and explain, "If people like this had won, Saddam would still be in power."

Precision guided?? By the Pentagon's own admittance, a large percentage of sorties did not hit their intended targets. I'll try to find an article referencing this, but I remember at the beginning of the invasoin in March '03, the US went 0 for 50 in their first air raids.

And this really tells it all, doesn't it: "Years ago, a bunch of people called Muslims tried to kill us all. " Not al-Qaeda? Not the Taliban? Just Muslims. So it is a holy war for some, it would seem.

And no, British intelligence no longer believes that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. Read the Butler report. It states that they believed the "evidence" at the time (2002) but now recognize that the sources are no longer credible. And I won't even go into what Joe Wilson said about it...

Satellites of trucks hauling things away? Just like those rocket tubes that just HAD to be used in centrifuges, right?

I've always said that if people want to have something to compare and contrast the current direction and philosophy of the Bush Administration, they should read the writings of Mussolini. I have some excerpts posted below.

---First of all, as regards the future development of mankind, and quite apart from all present political considerations. Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renuncia¬tion in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism. Equally foreign to the spirit of Fascism, even if accepted as useful in meeting special political situations --- are all internationalistic or League superstructures which, as history shows, crumble to the ground whenever the heart of nations is deeply stirred by sentimental, idealistic or practical considerations. Fascism carries this anti-pacifistic attitude into the life of the individual.

---Fascism will have nothing to do with universal embraces; as a member of the community of nations it looks other peoples straight in the eyes; it is vigilant and on its guard; it follows others in all their manifestations and notes any changes in their interests; and it does not allow itself to be deceived by mutable and fallacious appearances.

---The Fascist State is not a night watchman, solicitous only of the personal safety of the citizens; not is it organized exclusively for the purpose of guarantying a certain degree of material prosperity and relatively peaceful conditions of life, a board of directors would do as much. Neither is it exclusively political, divorced from practical realities and holding itself aloof from the multifarious activities of the citizens and the nation. The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit. The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith. The State is not only the present; it is also the past and above all the future. Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which it finds expression change, but the need for it remains. The State educates the citizens to civism, makes them aware of their mission, urges them to unity; its justice harmonizes their divergent interests; it transmits to future generations the conquests of the mind in the fields of science, art, law, human solidarity; it leads men up from primitive tribal life to that highest manifes¬tation of human power, imperial rule. The State hands down to future generations the memory of those who laid down their lives to ensure its safety or to obey its laws; it sets up as examples and records for future ages the names of the captains who enlarged its territory and of the men of genius who have made it famous. Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay.

---Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only the forms of life but their content - man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this propose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway.

"Precision guided?? By the Pentagon's own admittance, a large percentage of sorties did not hit their intended targets. I'll try to find an article referencing this"
--Please do.

"And this really tells it all, doesn't it: "Years ago, a bunch of people called Muslims tried to kill us all. " Not al-Qaeda? Not the Taliban? Just Muslims. So it is a holy war for some, it would seem."
--And do you believe it's only Al-Qaeda and the Taliban setting bombs by the roadsides and strapping on the dynamite vests?

"And no, British intelligence no longer believes that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. Read the Butler report."
That would be the report which read, "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.... The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium."

" And I won't even go into what Joe Wilson said about it..."
--Since it contradicts his own findings in Niger, by all means don't.

"Satellites of trucks hauling things away? Just like those rocket tubes that just HAD to be used in centrifuges, right?"
--Naw, I'm sure they were feverishly undermining the UN to hide something completely innocent. Aren't you?

"I've always said that if people want to have something to compare and contrast the current direction and philosophy of the Bush Administration, they should read the writings of Mussolini. I have some excerpts posted below."
--And he makes it sound rather nice--that's kind of the goal of propoganda after all. The problem with your attempt at Reductio ad Hitlerum (I know it's Mussolini, not Hitler, but Reductio ad Hitlerum/Fascism/SS/Hitler-crony/Nazism just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way) is two-fold, in that neither do the statements accurately reflect fascism, nor your opponent.

Redneck- you are right about the Butler report. What I intended to say, and should have said, was that the Butler report actually concluded that Iraq had not purchased uranium. Wilson's statement not only backed this up, but said that the sale of uranium was such a closely regulated institution that it would have been near impossible for Iraq to have actually puchased uranium without everybody and their brother knowing about it, and that rumors of any such sale had been dismissed by US and other international authorities. The Butler report then goes on to indicate that the documents that referenced sales of uranium from Niger and the Congo to Iraq were forgeries (and we now know they were - interstingly enough coming from folks in the Berlusconi government in our Coalition of the Willing ally Italy) and that the IAEA itself did not believe there was sufficient evidence to determine that Iraq had been seeking uranium from either niger or Congo. The Butler report concludes that that intelligence exists to the contrary - but they do not actually provide it, rather saying that their intelligence (whatever it was) is from "various sources." The Butler report also says that (find paragraph 493 in the report) that the purpose of Iraq's visit to Niger in 1999 was unknown, but the circumstantial evidence (because of Niger's uranium business) lead to the stance that "uranium ore could have been the subject of discussions."

So what we have here, quite frankly, is a whole lot of nothing. Circumstantial evidence??? We're talking about going to fucking war here. And a war that by as told by "various sources" was desired by the Bush administration from the get-go, and for which the events of 9-11 gave them a perfect opportunity to accomplish those goals (as long as everybody just shut the fuck up and didn't ask question. Right Joe Wilson? Right Robert Byrd? Right Ralph Nader?)

"An explicit account of the zero for 50 record in strikes on high-value
targets was provided by Marc Garlasco, a former Defense Intelligence Agency
official who headed the joint staff's high-value targeting cell during the
war. Mr. Garlasco is now a senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch,
and he was a primary author of the December report, "Off Target: The Conduct
of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq."
The broad failure rate was confirmed by several senior military officials,
including some who served in Iraq or the region during the war, and by
senior intelligence officials."

Read the chapter on "Time-Sensitive and High-Value Targets" , see the 0-for-50 and the reference to civilians killed.

I'm not sure what you mean about my Reductio ad Hitlerum twofold problem: are you saying that my statements do not accurately reflect fascism, or that Mussolini's statements don't? I mean, Mussolini literally wrote the book, and those were his direct quotes. if you're talking about my "opponent" being Bush, or the Bush administration, well that is just a difference of opinion I guess. I read Mussolini's writings and see the Bush administration and the PNAC neocon philosophy.

"A bunch of Muslims tried to kill us all?" No, no, no.
A handful of terrorists WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN MUSLIMS ran planes into the World Trade Center.

Using your logic, when I.R.A. terrorists WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN ROMAN CATHOLICS killed Protestants in Northern Ireland, England would have been justified in bombing the Vatican.

That's racist talk, pure and simple. We built an army base in Saudi Arabia, treading on sacred Muslim ground in the process, and nobody except Muslims gave a second thought to it. In fact, we didn't even read about it in the press at the time.

I don't know what those trucks you refer to were hauling away, any more than you do. But if they were weapons of mass destruction, I suspect we'd know it by now...and they would have been used against us. Instead, Iraqis have defended their country with crude bombs.

I repeat...the phrase "Shock and Awe" will live in infamy. People who claim to be liberators don't talk like that. People who claim to promote freedom don't talk like that. People who respect human life and the religious beliefs of others don't talk like that.

"What I intended to say, and should have said, was that the Butler report actually concluded that Iraq had not purchased uranium."
--Ahh, a stunning victory, then... except neither Bush nor British intelligence had claimed that Iraq had managed to purchase Uranium.

" The Butler report then goes on to indicate that the documents that referenced sales of uranium from Niger and the Congo to Iraq were forgeries"
--And that those documents didn't show up until after it was decided that Iraq had tried to get Uranium from Nigeria. None of the intelligence was based off these papers.

"Here's the 0-for-50 I was talking about (sorry, I still haven't figured out how to link web items):http://portland.indymedi...04/06/290742.shtml"
First, I don't know if I can type the symbols in without the program reading them as HTML, so it would read...
"Here's the (greater-than-sign)a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/290742.shtml"(less-than-sign)0-for-50
Which would come out to:
Here's the 0-for-50 I was talking about.

Second--indymedia? Indymedia? This may be the point in time to say "Don't make me laugh", but too late, you already did.

The Human Rights Watch report says, "Of the fifty aerial strikes against Iraqi leaders, not one resulted in the death of the intended target."
Not the first fifty aerial strikes, the fifty directly against Iraqi leaders, who in most cases weren't in the building that got hit.

"I'm not sure what you mean about my Reductio ad Hitlerum twofold problem: are you saying that my statements do not accurately reflect fascism, or that Mussolini's statements don't?"
Considering you were quoting Mussolini's statements, I'd say there isn't a difference in opinions. Considering that you seem to consider anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy a fascist, I'd say both.

" I mean, Mussolini literally wrote the book, and those were his direct quotes."
--And, as I said last time, Mussolini wrote propoganda to make his system look good--that's kind of the purpose of propoganda. The people under fascism knew the system sucked, but put up with it because, as they put it, "the trains run on time".

"A handful of terrorists WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN MUSLIMS ran planes into the World Trade Center."
--And tried to blow it up in 93, and blew up two US Embassies in Africa, and hijacked the Achille Lauro (with Egypt's help in hiding them), and committed thousands of other atrocities. And are involved in 90+% of the violence around the world. It kind of sets a pattern here.

"Using your logic, when I.R.A. terrorists WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN ROMAN CATHOLICS killed Protestants in Northern Ireland, England would have been justified in bombing the Vatican."
--First of all, I don't see any planes bombing Mecca--maybe those were in the IndyMedia reports? Second, the Vatican didn't officially approve and fund IRA murders.

"That's racist talk, pure and simple."
--Nonsense. You think there aren't any white muslims? Look in Croatia and Chechnya. Or most of North Africa, for that matter. Engaging in a little racial stereotyping yourself, there, ain't you?

"We built an army base in Saudi Arabia, treading on sacred Muslim ground in the process, and nobody except Muslims gave a second thought to it."
The entire nation of Saudi Arabia is holy ground? So, using your logic, we can feel free to bomb Meccca because there are Muslim military groups in Jerusalem.

And as an extra note--25% of the palestinians are Christian. Yet we have no "St. John's Regiment" or "Christian Crusade" to match the "Al-Aqsa Brigade" and "Islamic Jihad" out there murdering women and children as fast as they can. Why is that, do you think?

"I don't know what those trucks you refer to were hauling away, any more than you do."
--Well, how about you make a wild guess. You think they decided to take off for a company picnic? What do you think was in those trucks, flowers for the elderly?

"But if they were weapons of mass destruction, I suspect we'd know it by now...and they would have been used against us. Instead, Iraqis have defended their country with crude bombs"
--Because enough stuff to fill a swimming pool can't be hidden in a nation the size of Califorina, just can't be. Especially since he used up all the available space hiding a fleet of MiGs out in the desert. As for not using chemical weapons against us, it could be they didn't break out the SCUDS because by the time they were ready to fire we were rolling through Baghdad. Then again, we've found chemical-weapon bombs already, each loaded with about enough Sarin to kill 60,000 people. I guess that's not enough lives to rate the guy as dangerous.

"I repeat...the phrase "Shock and Awe" will live in infamy. People who claim to be liberators don't talk like that. People who claim to promote freedom don't talk like that. People who respect human life and the religious beliefs of others don't talk like that.
Bullies do. Sociopaths do. Chickenhawks do."
--Next time, then, we'll ask him pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top to quit gassing his people, how's that sound?

"yes, liberals pray, too"
--To who, Karl Marx?

" And I pray that my grandkids know the difference between liberators and bullies."
--So do I; especially because it's obvious they won't learn it from you. Fortunately, they can ask the people of Iraq--and thanks to the US, the people of Iraq can tell them.

I consider Human Rights Watch to be a credible source, and apparently so does the New York Times as they chose to reference the HRW report in an article on the findings. Check the link at the bottom of the indymedia page. Oh, I know, you think the NYTimes is a liberal rag not worthy of paying any attention to, but still, you asked for a source so I gave it. You know where "we" get our information, and you don't buy the sources (just as I don't believe a single word spouted by BushCo) so I honestly don't know why you bother.

What is important about the Butler report - and yes I know Bush didn't claim that any sale took place - is that they wanted to make it seem like a sale was imminent, that it could take place any day if we don't take action. It couldn't have. And the governments of Niger and Congo denied any discussions of uranium sale, let alone the sale itself. Yet "various sources" said those discussions had taken place. At least give us an idea of who those various sources might have been or how they were credible. Maybe they asked Ahmed Chalabi about it.

Explain to me how Mussolini's writings on fascism are any more propoganda than Marx's on communism or Friedman on capitalism. It's an explanation of a philosophy and what is needed to make that philosophy bear fruit. And you can't tell me that a goodly portion of the Italian (or German) people for that matter didn't buy into it, at least for a time. They bought into it enough to make war on the rest of Europe. And why did they buy into it - nationalism, creation of enemies, fearmongering... not in the least bit familiar is it? And when the Italians realized they had been duped ,and that Mussolini had essentially destroyed their economy with his war machine, and this was not, in fact the way they wanted to live ... well, you've seen the pictures, I'm sure.

Did you read that HRW report you linked? It said "Warlords and the Taliban..." The Taliban is not gone from Afghanistan. We haven't won that fight yet. Perhaps if we hadn't diverted to Iraq, we would have. Iraq and Afghanistan are (or were until Bush went on his little jaunt) entirely separate issues.

I simply disagree with your assessment of Mussolini's and Marx/Engels' work as propaganda. I don't know what else to say. They were each describing a philosophy, and if you read the full texts of their work, neither denied the roadblocks and difficulties implementation of those philosophies would encounter. In essence, you are saying that any ideas, speech, or writings that predict the feasability of future actions towards an expressed goal are propaganda. OK. Well, that's just about everything, so we are all propagandists then. And Bush and Co are egregious offenders by your definition, I take it?

I think you're being a bit cavalier with the whole "trains running on time" bit. The Germans and the Italians were deceived by their governments. Some recognized the deception, spoke out, and were summarily executed. Others, knowing the consequences of calling a spade a spade, if you will, chose to play along for their own safety and security - or they fled. But a huge number of them were simply deceived. Didn't know about concentration camps. Believed that they had a historical and God-given right (as professed by the Nazis) to Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, etc. Believed truly that they were the master race. To what extent parts of the population believed which things , and to what extent, who knows - but for an entire population to engage in international warfare, there's more going on than "trains running on time."

Does loving your country make you a fascist? Hell no, I love my American Constitution. I don't know what the hell we're doing to it, that's what pisses me off. We have different notions of what America is. I love my America. You love your America. But they are different countries, matey. That's what's going to lead us to another civil war someday. We have extremely divergent notions of what this place is supposed to be.

There's no evidence that Saddam was training terrorists. And apparently nobody else in the region was too concerned - not even the Kuwaitis - about him. Take Turkey, for instance. NATO member, and our ally. They thought the whole thing was such a crock they wouldn't even let us use their airspace, let alone operate form land bases. Same with Jordan...or Saudi Arabia, if memory serves me correctly. Then again, maybe that's because the Saudis were training terrorists, I don't know.

Saddam firing on our pilots? Our pilots routinely violated Iraqi sovereign airspace: "Since there was no UN mandate for military enforcement of the Kurdish safe areas or the establishment of “No Fly Zones,” the Iraqis had as much right to shoot at them as would any country when enemy warplanes infringe on their territory."

And Saddam invading his neighbors - it was alright for him to do that when we had him fighting the Iranians for us. And read this interesting piece about what the US knew about the Iraq/Kuwait conflict before it even happened:

On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war. The transcript of this meeting is as follows:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I have lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"

Saddam Hussein:
"As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we [the Iraqis] meet [with the Kuwaitis] and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
"What solutions would be acceptable?"

Saddam Hussein:
"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"

(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

(Saddam smiles.)
------------------------------------------------------------
At a Washington press conference called the next day, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:

"Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?"

to which she responded:
"I'm entirely unaware of any such protest."

On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the
"United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."

Eight days later, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein's massed troops invaded and occupied Kuwait (ironically, this was done in a method historically similar to the American anexation of Texas). One month later in Baghdad, British journalists obtained the tape and transcript of the Hussein-Glaspie meeting on July 25, 1990. In order to verify this astounding information, they attempted to confront Ms. Glaspie as she was leaving the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 2:
"You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait), but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the oppose - that America was not associated with Kuwait."

Journalist 1:
"You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?"

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
"Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait."

Journalist 1:
"You thought he was just going to take SOME of it? But how COULD YOU?! Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab Waterway) goal for the "WHOLE of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be." You KNOW that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!"

"America green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signalling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumalya oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - territories claimed by Iraq?"

"Did you read that HRW report you linked? It said "Warlords and the Taliban...""
--That's kind of how I came up with the quote from the head of the Women's Rights division about the fact that life for women is better than under the Taliban.

" The Taliban is not gone from Afghanistan. We haven't won that fight yet. Perhaps if we hadn't diverted to Iraq, we would have."
--Because we can't do anything about other supporters of terrorism until we find a buzzard turd somewhere with Osama's DNA in it....

"I simply disagree with your assessment of Mussolini's and Marx/Engels' work as propaganda."
--Both works were written to advocate their prospective system and encourage others to adopt it. What do you call that?

"In essence, you are saying that any ideas, speech, or writings that predict the feasability of future actions towards an expressed goal are propaganda. OK."
--As I made clear, above and earlier, no.

"I think you're being a bit cavalier with the whole "trains running on time" bit."
--I don't. The nations were broke, nothing worked, and they weren't eating. Those who knew what was going on were willing to overlook a lot. Those who didn't were willing to not look--at least they were eating now.

"Saddam firing on our pilots? Our pilots routinely violated Iraqi sovereign airspace: "Since there was no UN mandate for military enforcement of the Kurdish safe areas or the establishment of “No Fly Zones,” the Iraqis had as much right to shoot at them as would any country when enemy warplanes infringe on their territory.""
--Resolution 668. Not to mention the reason behind the no-fly zones. If you believe that Sodom should have had the right to gas his people some more, then please clarify that for me.

And that conversation is decidedly nasty-looking. Much nastier, in fact, than the conversation which actually took place, during which she made it clear that Iraq was to seek a peaceful resolution to the matter, with such statements as "he (Bush) also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East," and Sodom told her that " regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen." The conversation most definitely did not end with the US "green-lighting" the invasion and Sodom's fictional smile.

I checked Wikipedia under April Glaspie, which says that there are two transcripts of that meeting, and the State Department has not verified either of them. Both of them were published in the New York Times.

It seems to me that UN Resolution 688 refers to the humanitarian crisis with the Kurdish population, and is not a go-ahead for US military to invade sovereign Iraqi airspace. I'm not trying to excuse Hussein's administration for human rights violations. Read the line "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area" - it seems that they were concerned about refugees destabilizing neighboring countries in this particualr resolution, and it doesn't say anything about authorizing military intervention.

Perhaps you were referring to the "terrorist training camp" at Salman Pak. A PBS report on this can be found at:

Check the editor's note at the side:
Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.]

"I consider Human Rights Watch to be a credible source, and apparently so does the New York Times as they chose to reference the HRW report in an article on the findings."
--The New York Times also considered Jayson Blair a credible source....

I am not claiming now or earlier that life for women was a utopia in Afghanistan, or even that the conditions present are acceptable. But I still assert that to claim conditions have not improved due to the removal of the Taliban is ridiculous.

"What is important about the Butler report - and yes I know Bush didn't claim that any sale took place - is that they wanted to make it seem like a sale was imminent, that it could take place any day if we don't take action."
--So Saddam was just sending someone down there for an excuse to sample Nigerian cousine?

"And the governments of Niger and Congo denied any discussions of uranium sale, let alone the sale itself."
--Because of course they would immediately admit it to the nation that sends them huge amounts of funding if they were selling Uranium to our enemies in violation of UN sanctions... France and Germany claimed they weren't selling any non-allowed materials to Iraq, too, and they didn't have as much to cover up.

"Explain to me how Mussolini's writings on fascism are any more propoganda than Marx's on communism or Friedman on capitalism."
--Why "more propoganda"? Are you claiming that The Communist Manifesto wasn't propoganda, with such quotes as "Workers unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."? They wrote books to make their system look like an attractive alternative to what was already in place. Friedman's work contrasts to this in that capitalism was an already existant system, rather than a change he wanted to see enacted. Ayn Rand's work, on the other hand, is certainly propogada. I loved Atlas Shrugged, but that doesn't make it a non-fiction book any more than The Jungle.

" And you can't tell me that a goodly portion of the Italian (or German) people for that matter didn't buy into it, at least for a time. They bought into it enough to make war on the rest of Europe."
Of course they did--but the salient point wasn't that it made their country look better, or that they figured they really belonged at the top of the world. What they bragged about was the trains running on time.

"And why did they buy into it - nationalism--
Because to love your country makes you a fascist?
--creation of enemies
Because Sodom wasn't training terrorists, or swearing he'd destroy us, or taking over his neighbors, or firing on our planes--the bastard was firing on our pilots! You can't get much more obvious a sign of aggression than for someone to be shooting at you.
--fearmongering...--
Because it's not like they blew up some buildings or something....
--not in the least bit familiar is it?"
Not on my side of the aisle. On the other hand, if I hear one more time about how the Republicans are gonna pump the rivers full of chemicals, throw old people out in the street, and lynch black people, I'm going to vomit.

"And Ted Kennedy IS a fascist."
While his opinions lean far more to the communist side, he is> a drunken murderer. And I don't mean as a joke--look up Chappaquiddick.

"It seems to me that UN Resolution 688 refers to the humanitarian crisis with the Kurdish population, and is not a go-ahead for US military to invade sovereign Iraqi airspace."
Yeah, there was a humanitarian crisis. Sodom was bombing them. Ma'am, you can try stopping bombers by throwing rocks if you want--I'll even lend you my slingshot--but I think warplanes would work best.

--You're telling me that they used the plane at Salmon Pak for anti-highjacking procedures? Excuse me for a few moments, while I laugh my ass off. And, of course, the guy can't be believed because he was against Sodom--and I notice they "forgot" to mentioni that there was more than one defector telling them about Salmon Pak. But Sodom's line about Iraqi special forces performing anti-hijacking procedures to use with that, what, two, three, passenger planes there is perfectly believable.

Fortunately, there are less biased accounts of Salmon Pak, and the other terrorist training camps (no quotes appropriate), including intelligence considered in the 9-11 Commission. Nor is Salmon Pak by any margin the only training camp discovered.

Extra note--don't bother with Wikipedia. Any entry might have a liberal bias. Or it might have a conservative bias. Or it might be some complete nutcase writing it.

Wikipedia basically leaves an encyclopedia empty and lets people fill it out as they wish--except they use the Internet to let a whole lot more people fill it out. There's no telling who wrote a particular "fact", where they got it from, or who, if anyone, checked it.

Finally, not only am I wasting a couple hours a day with this site, but I'm actually frequenting the blog of someone who writes for Democratic Underground. It don't get much more contemptible than that, and lending someone like that my time--well, it don't get much dumber than that, and I ain't dumb.

Meaning I'm going to be doing something worthwhile instead. This is my last post here.